BBC debunks 9/11 conspiracy theories

Post Reply New Topic

The Big Picture:

What happened in Manhattan on Sept. 11 gave birth to the 911 truth movement. Structural failure alone can not demolish steel-framed buildings into piles of rubble. I have yet to hear valid argument to the contrary.

(note: this is an abridged/revised version of a post I made on page 2 of this thread. The images here have been condensed to save space.)

This photo gives us an idea as to the amount of steel that was used to frame the Twin Towers.

Structural failure is not sufficient to cause this reaction:



Even a layman can understand that floor truss failure does not cause buildings to pulverize into dust.

This 5 ½ minute video is an excellent presentation pointing to the use of explosives. Every skeptic should view it.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WlneVs4lnCs[/youtube]

No, I was asking how you can state that conspirators would never reveal the plot for risk of death, yet state that conspirators revealed the plot the news organizations for no apparent reason, except to reveal the plot to news organizations. This is completely different.

If I was robbing a bank I certainly would not tip off the news organizations for the heck of it if the penalty was death. Yet, that is what you are saying.




What about the answers that jimservo has provided? Are they just to be ignored? Also, I don't quite understand this position that the towers must have been brought down by demolitions. Could you expand further please?

From what I have seen in past demolitions (as this is what you seem to be implying, but I'm not quite sure) the numerous explosions you claim are necessary to completely pulvarize a building are clearly visible when the building is being brought down. Or, are you implying that the explosions were all hidden in the center of the towers so they would not be visible on the outside? As I can see no such explosions during the towers collapse. Also, are you now implying that the whole building was rigged with explosives? This would seem even more improbable.

Your picture only shows one other structual failure a few stories below the point of impact. So, are implying that two points of collapse are enough to pulvarize a building, but one isn't? Shouldn't your picture show numerous points of collapse throughout the entire building? This second structual failure is highly probably because the weight of the building above causes this second collapse point. Like if I create a collapse point on a stack of soda cans, the cans will cleary give way below the point of collapse, creating two collapse points, otherwise the stack would not crumble.

Might it not be possible that your theory is mistaken because no one has ever brought down a buidling the size of the twin towers before, thus the enormous weight can pulvarize the building?

The computer I am on doesn't have any sound, so I will have to view your video later and respond.

I don't think the towers were brought down by demolitions, but I do believe there was a political conspiracy, and Bush definately had a large hand in it.

at most 9/11 was politically motivated neglect.


at the very least, it was just negligence in that the rich brat didn't expect to ever have to work.

Have any of you seen all the work it takes to bring down a building with controlled demolitions?
First they weaken the structure cutting beams demolishing walls it takes weeks. It's not like the people dressed like janitors were doing all this at night. It take a crew using loud machinery weeks to prep buildings to have them fall correctly who did all this work? Why did nobody notice? Probably because it didn't happen

he generally makes a good point.

Agreed.

Criminal conspirators do not have an urge to confess for the obvious reason that if convicted they would be executed. I said that in response to your earlier remark that “All humans have the urge to confess, or relay secrets or information.”

I think it unlikely that the BBC was directly contacted by a 911 operative. It is more probable that someone, like a reporter in the vicinity, observed the conversations around him and relayed the information back. The fact that some knew building 7 was going to collapse before it did has been established. People have been filmed leaving the area while saying “keep an eye on that building it will be coming down.” How these people came to this information is unknown. A properly conducted investigation could clear up the question.

The significance of the CNN and BBC tapes is that it contradicts, in an indisputable way, the official story that the collapse of WTC 7 was an unexpected event.

On page 1 jimservo asks: “Did you know that a large portion of the structure facing the trade center [wtc 7] had it's foundation ripped out from under it?”

On page 2 jimservo writes a post claiming fires weakened the steel to the point of collapse. In that post he displays an image with the caption: “Do you see that? The columns are leaning inward. This is a very bad sign for a building, especially a skyscraper.”
reduced image here:

The steel columns in this pic are leaning inward because the plane hit them. To be fair jimservo didn’t directly claim otherwise, but posting that pic within the context of that post is misleading to say the least.

On several occasions jimservo has stated the cores of the twin towers were constructed of concrete. This is completely false.

No, I haven’t been ignoring jimservo. I am well aware of his posts.

What you see here is explosions.

The steel and pulverized concrete bursting from the towers perimeter is a series of explosions. It doesn’t look like a conventionally controlled-demolition because it isn’t. A conventional demolition would have required access to most rooms of the building. Arranging charges in that manner would have been extremely difficult, if not impossible, to do in secret. The central elevator and utility shafts would have had to suffice. Explosives were pointed outward to accomplish total destruction. This is also convenient for the 911 plotters because a conventionally controlled-demolition would have been easily recognized as such.

From the beginning I have asserted that WTC 1, 2, and 7 were rigged with explosives.

I’m not entirely clear on what is being said here. If you are referring to the red arrow in the photo above, I believe it points to a demolition squib. My point in displaying that photo was to demonstrate the explosive power being released from within the major dust/debris mass. I have yet to cover the topic of demolition squibs.

No, it is not possible. Analysis on this has concluded that the energy required to pulverize the Twin Towers into dust is at least 10 times greater than the energy available in the form of the gravitational-potential-energy due to the tower's elevated mass.

As I explained in my latest reply to jonathan79 the demolition of the Twin Towers was not conventional. Rigging explosives in the elevator and utility shaft of the central columns without the use of loud equipment would have been possible.

So, you are now saying that people do not have the urge to confess, can keep a secret because of fear of execution, yet will openly discuss such topics on the street? I'm sorry, but this is hardly believable. There are only four ways that people on the street could have come to the conclusion that buildings were coming down.

1) They knew in advance and were in on the "conspiracy"
2) They saw damage occuring to said buildings in a manner such that they would probably come down
3) They were making wild guesses which happen to be true.
4) The police told them

If 2,3, or 4 is the case, then these events are pointless, so you must obviously believe that 1 is ture. Yet, you keep saying, "now further investigation needs to be done about these matters" (a paraphrase here) in order to take a position of "well, I'm not linking it to the conspiracy, but it sure is suspicious" (another paraphrase here) when it is very clear that you are using such events as evidence of a conspiracy, otherwise you would not bring them up.

Also, has jimservo pointed out, it was the police who were telling people that the buildings were coming down, so this probably what people were repeating in the street. Now, are you saying that the police were in on it, and that they sacrificed their own to avoid being linked to the plot?




I could only find one occasion (not "several") where he referred to the core as being constructed of concrete, but he says that it was constructed of both steel and concrete. Please show me these "several occasions" where he has made this statement.



jimservo has answered this already. They are dust/debris, not steel and conrete.

As far as your last response about rigging explosive purely in the elevator shafts, if this was the case, then your theory that the towers could only be pulvirized by explosives is false, because in order to pulvirize something, they must do it a manner of chopping up the whole building, simply putting explosives in the elevator shafts, according to your own arguments, is not enough. Simply for the fact that the outside of the towers would not have pulvirized, but would have flew off in large chunks. Also, someone must have seen someone bringing in these explosives, as it would take tons of TNT to rigg both towers, and hours of work, with many men. Just not plausible.


All in all, jimservo has provided a link response for most if not all of your links, so I don't see how yours can be any more believable.

Alas, people will believe what they want too, so I do not see any further purpose in continuing with this debate as I still do not see any evidence to a demolition/conspiracy.

I need to be honest. I am tired of this debate over something so obvious. Nevertheless...

This is very normal. Conspiracy theorists like to say, "I never thought I would buy it, but WOW LOOK!" This doesn't really mean anything however. People claim they never believed in aliens but were then abducted but it doesn't mean that they actually were. People have switched from one political party to the other but it doesn't give one party some inherent "moral authority" over the other.



Jacob, what you are seeing are not "explosive squibs." What you are seeing is air being forced out of the building. Let's assume that each one of the "squibs" seen on the videos was actually an explosive. Why were they so random? Why were they seen on the outer part of the building? Why did they not have large amounts of explosive power (or say, a fireball?)? Why was it even necessary to have "squibs" when the building was crashing to the Earth anyway?



I'm tired of this argument. It's a lie.



More at this site.



So are you saying they weren't in on it (ie: CNN, and the BBC; why not Fox News?) but merely refused to report on it? Why report the collapse early? What is the point? If the big evil government is going to destroying the buildings, isn't telling all the media people merely involve more people in the conspiracy? Isn't that...INSANE?! That risks someone speaking out and exposing a cover up? After all, don't the 9/11 "truthers" claim William Rodriguez as there (only) #1 expert witness? Supposing this story is true, why would the gov't risk more? Or did the media go along with the government just because they are scared? Then why is William Rodriguez still alive? Also, why is the BBC so anti-Tony Blair, and George Bush? What's the deal?



The BBC is owned and paid for by British taxpayers.



Ted Turner is not Steve Jobs, and Steve Jobs is not Ruppert Murdoch and Ruppert Murdoch is not Bill Gates.



Why would international corporations want to destroy the World Trade Center? It was a center for international finance? The attacks aggravated a correction that was already underway in the financial markets.



None of the buildings cited were brought done by controlled demolition and literally COULD NOT HAVE BEEN based on the video, and photographic evidence. The buildings collapse don't even resemble a controlled demolition except in the most superficial manner.



Pulverizing into dust?



Is this dust, Jacob?

Yes, floors (and other remains) were smashed together and a powdery remnants were forced out of the building from the collapse but this is not evidence by itself of a controlled demolition.

...



Hahaha! Really?! You mean if a steel floor, dozens of stories up, fails you need not worry about a skyscraper collapsing?!



You will notice in the photo a central core surrounded by large open floor areas. This was unlike previous buildings such as the Empire State Building, which had been struck by a plane in a different context. It should be noted however that several structural engineers have stated that if a skyscraper other then the World Trade Center were to be hit in a similar way such as 9/11, it would be unlikely to survive aloft as long as the WTC did.



Structural failure can cause a building to collapse. This isn't something astonishing. That little arrow doesn't point to a bomb.



Firefighters had been pulled from the area due to the building being unsafe. Why is it so impossible to believe that a severely damaged building that had been on fire for hours collapsed on it's own?



What this reminds me of is people taking what people say on the ground at the time ("It sounded like a bomb") and using that as absolute proof of some kind of conspiracy.



I should have noted it was a third of it's foundation was ripped out. You didn't answer this question.



Yes, and also because of a fire. Want another photograph?





It appears that you are correct. Several sites have indicated that the core of the WTC was made of reinforced steel. The central area of the structures were the areas the most columns.



For the government to demolish a building such as the World Trade Center without having complete access to it at current levels of technologies would have been difficult unless they were using
1. A tactical nuclear bomb.
2. A airstrike.



This would have been noticed. Furthermore, it would not have been enough. What kind of bombs would they have planted? When? What about the planes that flew into the towers?



Explosives were "pointed outward?" What does this mean? These explosives must have been pretty freakin' powerful! What about the "squibs?" They were near the elevators at the center of the building.



What? Why? I don't understand what you mean? Do you mean that the implosion was some sort of signal to 9/11 plotters to say that is was actually structural collapse when they know it's actually not? You may mean something else...



I find this utterly confusing. But for another perspective on this go here.

APPENDIX I: Impact into WTC 1



APPENDIX II: Impact into WTC II



APPENDIX III: Structural Failure

I have not implied in any way that the firemen, police or bystanders on the street are criminal conspirators. That is your insinuation.

Your reconstruction of my statements draws blatantly false inferences.


Sufficient explosive force will pulverize and shatter a structure. If one proposes that gravitational force alone was sufficient to pulverize the Twin Towers, then it is only logical to accept that explosives can accomplish the same, at least on a theoretical level.

The 911 plotters would have used a high-explosive such as RDX instead of TNT. It doesn’t require massive quantities of RDX to take a building down. In 2006 the 30 floor Landmark Tower in Fort Worth, Texas was demolished with only 364 pounds of explosives.

Landmark Tower

Given the fact that the Twin Towers are much larger than the Landmark Tower, more explosives would have been necessary. Dr. Steven Jones estimates (pdf. p.31) that 1300 pounds per tower would have been sufficient. 1300 pounds is a little more that half a ton. The explosives could have been brought into the building on a service cart disguised in a package or toolbox. At 50 lb. increments it would have taken one person 26 trips, or two people 13 trips each, to bring it all in.

If someone thinks that Dr. Jones’ estimate is too low, then just double the numbers and you can see that it is still quite feasible.


A linked response in its self doesn’t make anyone more or less believable.

*comes into thread*

*looks at the vast field of untestable hypotheses and strawmen*

*leaves*

The explanation is that some of the explosives detonated out of sequence. It is more than air that is being ejected, it is pulverized matter. If falling floors are causing these gas ejections, then what is pulverizing the concrete further up? In some instances squibs are seen bursting out 20 floors below the main area of destruction.


This chart, provided by jimservo, compares the time it took the North and South Towers to collapse to the time it would take an object to fall the same distance in a vacuum. In a vacuum there is no atmosphere. The North and South towers did not fall in a vacuum. Falling debris from the WTC was slowed down by air resistance.

In any case the chart shows both buildings collapsing in less than 13 seconds, and free fall taking 9.2 seconds in a vacuum. Even with this distorted data it is impossible that it required only an additional 3.8 seconds for the top floors of the Twin Towers to plow their way down the entire mass of the building.


William Rodriguez is not the only witness. There is a large body of eyewitness accounts. Here is just a sample:

Louie Cacchioli: "I was taking firefighters up in the elevator to the 24th floor to get in position to evacuate workers. On the last trip up a bomb went off. We think there were bombs set in the building."

Jeff Birnbaum: "When we got to about 50 feet from the South Tower, we heard the most eerie sound that you would ever hear. A high-pitched noise and a popping noise made everyone stop. We all looked up. At the point, it all let go. The way I see it, it had to be the rivets. The building let go. There was an explosion and the whole top leaned toward us and started coming down."

Neil deGrasse Tyson: "I hear a second explosion in WTC 2, then a loud, low-frequency rumble that precipitates the unthinkable -- a collapse[...]"

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/eyewitnesses.html

As far as questions about the media are concerned, I have dealt with that extensively already. Please refer to my previous posts.


British taxpayers don’t run the day to day operations at the BBC, elitists do.


Those individuals may not be the same person, but none of them will oppose the policies I listed.


International corporations did not want to destroy the World Trade Center.


I would have been more exact to have said pulverized into “dust and rubble”, or pulverized into “dust and debris.”

EDIT on 3/15/07: After reviewing this thread I realized that my original post stated "dust and debris". My original phrasing was correct.



I didn’t respond to your question because it is absurd. If I proposed that Bush and Cheney had rigged the WTC with explosives singly handily while wearing plastic Nixon masks to hide their identities, I don’t think anyone would have took me seriously enough to respond.

A third of Building 7’s foundation was ripped out from under it? I’d love to see the schematics on that one.


The 911 operatives would have used a plastic based explosive such as HMX or RDX. These types of explosives are not detonated by fire. If the plotters wanted some extra insurance they could have placed the explosives in a protective container similar to a black-box used on aircraft.


Explosives can be designed to project most of their power in a given direction, such as with shaped charges.

Plastic based explosives like RDX are extremely powerful.

Squibs occur when explosive pressure inside a room expands so rapidly that the mixture of matter and air smash through a window producing a visible dust stream.


If the Twin Towers were demolished in the conventional manner, such as Building 7 was, it would have been much more difficult to fool the public that the collapse was due to spontaneous structural failure. Many people have seen conventionally controlled-demolitions on TV or the internet.


In this photo we can see the upper section of the South Tower leaning forward as the building starts to break up. What makes this interesting is that physical law demands this upper section of the building continue its forward momentum and fall away from the tower unless another force counteracts that motion. In this case explosives would explain why the upper section disappeared into the cloud of dust and landed as rubble at the base of the tower. Otherwise it would have landed off to the side, quite possibly upside down.

Watch the video South Tower Collapse.

Last edited by Jacob_Landshire on 16 Mar 2007, 6:03 am, edited 1 time in total.

I had enough.

Wrong. Don't lie.





There is no reference to a bomb in this quote.



Might I guess that the "explosion" was merely a comment to refer to the initial impact of the upper floors? We are after all referring to a witness and not an expert. In the moments after 9/11 I absurdly imagined that the first large civilian aircraft innocently crashed into the towers followed by second large civilian aircraft innocent that got lost in the smoke generated from the explosion and fires from the first. I stated this theory to others before retracting it moments later as obviously absurd. People say things in the moment that are not plainly true.



I am honest enough to say that I have not been able to find such a diagram. I did here such an idea, from someone, although I no longer remember who it was.

Here is a official evil government diagram of damage to WTC 7:



Also I couldn't help but notice one of the pictures you were using had WTC smack dab in the middle out it:



See where that debris is going? Wow, that might just cause some uh...structural damage maybe? Like this less severe damage to the Amex Building.



However, yes, the collapse also started fires (possibly from gas tanks that were inside the buildings) like these that were in WTC 5:



Of course you could say, WTC 5 didn't collapse, but then again WTC 5 is extremely short too comparatively. Also there is NO FREAKIN' DOUBT that a fire cause can weakening of steel or that plane of structural damage can cause collapse. This has happened before in smaller scales in the past.



Although a skyscraper is sure vulnerable to aircraft attack and the resulting fire. Actually, this makes this conspiracy really dumb. First, the conspiracy has pilots (or drone aircraft, laser beams from space, whatever) crash into the World Trade Center. But this isn't enough. Before a hand they rig the building with explosives! What the heck? Did they do this with the Pentagon to? Oh no! With the Pentagon there was no plane at all, and the problem is it was it's the fact that it's reinforced concrete superstructure tore the plane's remnants to shreds is somehow evidence of conspiracy. But then magically the collapse of a section of wall afterwards was all part of the plot. But why?! It is unnecessary, and pointless even assuming there is actually a conspiracy. To be fair, Jacob, you may not personally buy into every particular of this nonsense.



But why don't they build the whole plane out the of the black box? ... Sorry, stupid joke.



Of course, and that is what caused the building to lower part of the building to give way to the weight of the above it in the video I linked to, RDX explosives.



They may be "extremely powerful" but they idea that someone could secretly place enough of these type explosives do demolish the World Trade Center is ludicrous. They aren't that powerful. Honestly, you would have to rip apart the core beams and that would take time. You have talked about how strong the steel is and how we shouldn't expect a jetliner and fire to knock it down, yet now you are arguing about how some plastic explosives, sneaked in, would do the job?

You talk about the Landmark Tower, a thirty story, building. Where here is some information of that demolition job:



Four months. (source quote]

For the controlled demolition of a thirty-three story building:



(same source)

Does this sound like something that could be done while the building was still under complete operations and without notice? Give me a break.

I'm done with this topic unless someone more reasonable requests something.